Are you kidding with this?
Do you understand exactly what SETI is?

First of all, the program was started by Berkley. The majority of the people (myself included) "involved" with the program in the past decade install a small program on their computers, that then runs when ever the processor is idle. It is completely passive, and isn't "alien hunting", its analysis of data that comes in from satellites all over the place.

Check Google/Wikipedia before you make random accusations, please.

http://www.seti.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SETI

Sorry, Steve, I go with Carter on this one.

They are looking for extra-terrestrial intelligent life. And I'm all for whatever floats your boat, but just because it came out of Berkeley doesn't mean it's cool.

According to this link, Lee Bruner's computer has been used for this project to a whopping total of 103 thousand hours of searching for alien life forms.

That might be normal for Star Trek fans and grad students in California, but that's not what your typical Montana Republican candidate is going for. And the Hardliner is right on to point out the fact that Ma and Pa down on the farm might have a hard time accepting Lee when he says, "Trust me, I'm from the government. And do you mind if I go look for crop circles in your back 40?"

I don't think this will help him convince people he is a legitimate candidate in the general election. Unless, that is, the little green people get a vote, also...

Bad form, guys. Lee's a decent fellow and Tim's likely gonna win anyway. This was uncalled for. I do not endorse this event or product.

This is from the Wikipedia site that Steve Dogiakos mentioned.

"SETI has also occasionally been the target of criticism by those who suggest that it is a form of pseudoscience. In particular, critics allege that no observed phenomena suggest the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, and furthermore that the assertion of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence has no good Popperian criteria for falsifiability. Science fiction writer Michael Crichton, in a 2003 lecture at Caltech, stated that 'The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion.'"

There are two problems with this. First, I have just quoted Michael Crichton as a credible source in a political debate - I can almost feel the tractor beam pulling me in. Second, if this is pseudo-science akin to a religion, then it seems stranger still that Bruner would devote his office computer to this. I hope he doesn't plan on hooking up all the computers in the DOJ to this super-computer.

Let's ponder some resulting questions: 1) Who is the little kid in that picture? Is that one of Lee's kids dressed up for Halloween, or is that Lee when he was little? Perhaps the dream was born then, and it has never died. 2) More seriously, if Bruner was doing this research via his office computer - which is actually networked with the SETI universe and therefore accessible for data processing - is there any danger of confidential client information being compromised through such access? That is really a genuine problem, and if I were one of Lee's clients, I would be calling him and demanding assurances.

"We simply must accept the fact that Captain Kirk is no longer alive" -- Spock (The Tholian Web)

Ah-ha! The Search For Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe...

As I stand here at the corner of Walk/Don't Walk trying to determine the difference between soup and art, art and soup...

I am overwhelmed by the choice confronting me. Lee or Tim? Tim or Lee?

Do I choose the man with his head in the stars or the one with his feet on the ground? The one with his eye in the sky, or the one with a vision for a better future for the citizens of Montana? The one who spends his free time casting about searching for the unimaginable - or the one who devotes his free time to helping make his community, his state, and his country the kind of place we've imagined it can be?

I'm good with finding intelligent life in Montana. I choose Tim Fox for AG. The depth and breadth of his resume in both public and private sector law, his experience as an administrator in state government, and his lifetime commitment to the values that Montanans treasure make him an excellent, down to earth choice!

That leaves Lee plenty of time to continue his search among the billions and billions of stars for Klingons, Tribbles, or whatever.

So, Hardliner wants Erik and the crew in Helena to do a better job of screening prospective GOP candidates. The author of this blog is wrong. I personally don't care who wants to run as a Republican candidate. He/She has the right to file and compete for whatever office is available. And it is wrong for anyone in the party hierarchy to say someone can't run. It's not their call to make. That's up to the voters. They choose the "horse" we will ride in the general election. That's how the process works, like it or not.

Mike -

The party cannot (and should not) prevent anyone from running for office, however it should discourage candidates with credibility problems from running. For instance, a candidate wanted by the authorities in another state is not a credible candidate and gives the entire party a black eye.

Lee Bruner's credibility problem comes in the form of an eccentric hobby. We're merely pointing out that the party could have sparred itself (not to mention Mr. Bruner) some embarrassment by discussing these sorts of problems prior to a candidate filing.

What a slime ball piece. I sure hope Fox isn't involved in this with his background.

Carter, you are assuming the party knew Lee Bruner was going to file for AG. I don't know if the party did, or did not. At the local level, I do know the party usually is the last to know if someone is going to file for office. Should we attempt to recruit qualified candidates? Yes. If a person meets the legal requirements to file for public office, let them file. If they come with an eccentricity or two, so be it. Conservative voters discern those traits and vote appropriately. Finally, do eccentricities cause an embarrassment for the party? Maybe, maybe not. But it sure makes it more interesting for political pundits - and bloggers. I must admit, I'm now hooked on reading the "dextra" blogs.

Carter, interesting article and certainly information the average person didn't know about until you shed some light on it, however I don't think the State GOP can do a litmus test on candidates. I agree with you the GOP has taken on some questionable folk in the past and have even been strapped with some of the clowns. As you mentioned, we have the usual suspects like Kelleher, and if my memory serves me correctly Rick Jore was a Republican once along with Roger Koopman and the Liberty Tree crowd and then of course there's Brad Johnson and Mike Taylor, and I'm sure you can find plenty of folks who would question both of them and their political credibility and the party let's them play in the sandbox. And of course the Democrats in this state have their share of questionable characters, have you checked out the voting records of the likes of Ken Toole and Christine Kaufman so if you ever figure out a reasonable way to seperate the wheat from the chaff politically speaking that is, let us know, in the mean time I guess it's up to the voters to determine who is 'worthy' to carry the GOP banner into the general election.

Carter, interesting article and certainly information the average person didn't know about until you shed some light on it, however I don't think the State GOP can do a litmus test on candidates. I agree with you the GOP has taken on some questionable folk in the past and have even been strapped with some of the clowns. As you mentioned, we have the usual suspects like Kelleher, and if my memory serves me correctly Rick Jore was a Republican once along with Roger Koopman and the Liberty Tree crowd and then of course there's Brad Johnson and Mike Taylor, and I'm sure you can find plenty of folks who would question both of them and their political credibility and the party let's them play in the sandbox. And of course the Democrats in this state have their share of questionable characters, have you checked out the voting records of the likes of Ken Toole and Christine Kaufman so if you ever figure out a reasonable way to seperate the wheat from the chaff politically speaking that is, let us know, in the mean time I guess it's up to the voters to determine who is 'worthy' to carry the GOP banner into the general election.

The fact of the matter is that Lee Bruner is a solid Republican, and he is not necessarily a bad candidate. Howeve, he hasn't run a particularly strong campaign, and hasn't raised any money to speak of yet. So regardless of the alien thing, the biggest question mark about his credibility as a general election candidate is his ability to keep up in the money race against Parker, Wheat or Bullock, all three of whom have trounced him in fund-raising to date.

The alien hunter thing is a legitimate question of perception, though. In a Presidential campaign year, when nearly every office is on the ballot, the electoral debate will be pretty crowded and will give short shrift to second-tier candidates. If you give the D's a chance to define Lee Bruner to the people of Montana, and he has no resources to respond, then the only thing a lot of voters will ever know about him is that he is a lawyer from the X Files, and they will decide to choose the other guy on the ballot in November.

So those of you who think Carter has thrown a slime ball or has besmiched the good name of this auspicious public forum, think again. This baby is called THE HARDLINER for a reason. It's a rough world out there, and Republicans have been getting stomped in recent years, in case you hadn't noticed. This is a genuine issue of candidate credibility. Like it, don't like it, I don't care. But we should talk about it.

Keep it up, Carter.

As for screening GOP candidates, why don't we start first with screening the staff at GOP HQ? Some of those guys look like they crawled out from under a bridge.

Joe: you sound fired up on this issue. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but you might have chased away all dissenters.

Carter: When it comes to screening candidates, what power does the party really have? Any goof ball can walk in and slap the money down to become a candidate. In fact, I think Jake Eaton said that he hadn't ever heard from or met a couple of these guys who are running for the Senate.

On a final note, conservative diversity seems to be doing all right. Judging by the names on these posts, we have a former President, a fictional character, a Japanese guy, and a Greek guy.

I just read the Lee newspapers story about Lee Bruner. He apparently is running for Land Board. While that is certainly an important piece of the AG's role, I don't think it is either the most important nor the most significant responsibility of the office. I don't believe that Mr. Bruner understands the breadth or complexity of the Office of Attorney General.

This kind of crap is why so many people are tired of politics. And thank you Carter and Joe you have helped me make up my mind on the AG race. I will now be voting for Lee and telling everyone I know to do the same. Lee will make a good AG...End of story. This site has lost my respect.

Joe- you don't care? That and this piece are exactly why this party is in the outhouse.

Russ:

There's no doubt that Lee Bruner would make a good Attorney General. But he's damaged his credibility as a candidate by participating in a pasttime outside the mainstream. He won't get to be AG if he can't get elected...End of story.

You've lost the respect of me and probably a lot of our readers by having such a closed-minded, reactionary, response to a real issue. And voting for Lee Burner based solely what you read on this web site is a pretty ignorant way to make a decision.

The party is in the outhouse due to candidates like Lee Bruner who paint big, fat targets on their backs for the Democrats to shoot at, not because of a blog like this one pointing that fact out.

Now, now boys and girls, let's settle ourselves down here. Russ, Carter was simply making a point about a candidate, his point was based on a fact, something he researched. It's information that the general public should have to make an informed decision before they vote. I for one will be voting for Tim Fox and Carter's blog did not sway me one way or the other, I was always going to vote for Tim. The only reason the Montana GOP is in the 'outhouse' as you stated, is because our tent is a big one and the last elections we let the 'big boys' who are the party insiders call the shots and they drove the bus over the cliff with a lot of good folks on board when it hit the rocks. We can and will recover from their poor political judgement but we have to hang in there, keep working hard and maybe even vote for a few Dimokrats who are more qualified than some of the current GOP candidates before we get good government back on track. Just because a candidate has an 'R' behind their name doesn't mean their qualified, there's a couple of them running this time who simply need the JOB and that's no reason to keep em' around. So let's not over shoot our headlights like we did the last go round, don't take your toys and go home Russ, hang in there, the last time I checked the sun has come up the day after every election I'm aware of.

Now, now boys and girls, let's settle ourselves down here. Russ, Carter was simply making a point about a candidate, his point was based on a fact, something he researched. It's information that the general public should have to make an informed decision before they vote. I for one will be voting for Tim Fox and Carter's blog did not sway me one way or the other, I was always going to vote for Tim. The only reason the Montana GOP is in the 'outhouse' as you stated, is because our tent is a big one and the last elections we let the 'big boys' who are the party insiders call the shots and they drove the bus over the cliff with a lot of good folks on board when it hit the rocks. We can and will recover from their poor political judgement but we have to hang in there, keep working hard and maybe even vote for a few Dimokrats who are more qualified than some of the current GOP candidates before we get good government back on track. Just because a candidate has an 'R' behind their name doesn't mean their qualified, there's a couple of them running this time who simply need the JOB and that's no reason to keep em' around. So let's not over shoot our headlights like we did the last go round, don't take your toys and go home Russ, hang in there, the last time I checked the sun has come up the day after every election I'm aware of.